the problem with using wiki as support for your argument is that you need absolutely no understanding of the subject matter to tell someone they are wrong. if you wnat to taken seriously then you should be able to properly explain it your own words. whne I see a cut and paste from wiki it makes me laugh.
In fact I don't necessarily disagree with this. In this case, I had already put my argument in my own words and was just using what I found (and equally didn't find) on Wikipedia as support for what I was saying. The fact is that you can say this about
any source, whether it be Wikipedia, a print encyclopedia, or a newspaper article. You should be able to back up your argument with an outside source if you wish it to be taken seriously, and that's all I was doing here. Note my first post in this thread where I attack the response itself on the basis of logic.
Interesting how deep my influence has gotten here, that the original subject matter of the thread has been all but derailed for a discussion about the reliability and utility of Wikipedia based on one little post by good ol' Roundy. I'm just one voice in a sea of them, and I was simply giving my opinion on the subject and trying to back it up the easiest and fastest way I knew possible. Sue me.
My personal opinion is that Wikipedia is still generally a reliable source, by the way. Of course you can't always trust what you find, and I understand that. The way I see it if anybody feels that something I post out of Wikipedia is incorrect, they are free to voice their opinion about it. I just expect them to be able to somehow back up their argument that Wikipedia is wrong themselves. I still don't believe Wikipedia is wrong in this instance and have seen nothing credible posted to suggest so.